• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Pragmatic Free Trial Meta

Pragmatic Free Trail Meta is an open data platform that allows research into pragmatic trials. It collects and shares cleaned trial data and 프라그마틱 카지노 순위 (Chessdatabase.science) ratings using PRECIS-2, permitting multiple and varied meta-epidemiological studies that compare treatment effects estimates across trials that have different levels of pragmatism and other design features.

Background

Pragmatic trials provide evidence from the real world that can be used to make clinical decisions. The term "pragmatic" however, is a word that is often used in contradiction and its definition and measurement require clarification. Pragmatic trials should be designed to inform clinical practice and policy decisions, not to confirm the validity of a clinical or physiological hypothesis. A pragmatic trial should also aim to be as similar to real-world clinical practice as is possible, including the recruitment of participants, setting and design as well as the execution of the intervention, as well as the determination and analysis of outcomes and primary analyses. This is a major difference between explanatory trials, as described by Schwartz & Lellouch1 which are designed to confirm the hypothesis in a more thorough manner.

The trials that are truly pragmatic should avoid attempting to blind participants or the clinicians as this could lead to bias in estimates of the effect of treatment. Practical trials should also aim to enroll patients from a wide range of health care settings, to ensure that the results can be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are crucial to patients, like quality of life or functional recovery. This is particularly relevant for trials that involve surgical procedures that are invasive or may have serious adverse impacts. The CRASH trial29, for instance, focused on functional outcomes to compare a 2-page case-report with an electronic system for the monitoring of hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure. Similarly, the catheter trial28 used urinary tract infections that are symptomatic of catheters as the primary outcome.

In addition to these characteristics pragmatic trials should reduce the trial's procedures and requirements for data collection to reduce costs. Furthermore pragmatic trials should strive to make their results as applicable to clinical practice as is possible by making sure that their primary method of analysis is the intention-to-treat approach (as described in CONSORT extensions for pragmatic trials).

Many RCTs that do not meet the criteria for pragmatism, but contain features contrary to pragmatism have been published in journals of varying types and incorrectly labeled pragmatic. This can result in misleading claims of pragmaticity, 프라그마틱 순위 and the usage of the term needs to be standardized. The development of the PRECIS-2 tool, which offers a standard objective assessment of pragmatic features, is a good first step.

Methods

In a practical study the aim is to inform clinical or policy decisions by showing how an intervention could be integrated into routine care in real-world contexts. This differs from explanation trials, which test hypotheses about the cause-effect connection in idealized conditions. Therefore, pragmatic trials could have less internal validity than explanatory trials and might be more susceptible to bias in their design, conduct and analysis. Despite these limitations, pragmatic trials may be a valuable source of information for decisions in the context of healthcare.

The PRECIS-2 tool evaluates the degree of pragmatism within an RCT by scoring it across 9 domains ranging from 1 (very explicative) to 5 (very pragmatic). In this study, the recruitment, organisation, flexibility: delivery and follow-up domains scored high scores, however the primary outcome and the method for missing data were below the practical limit. This suggests that a trial could be designed with well-thought-out pragmatic features, without harming the quality of the trial.

However, it is difficult to determine how practical a particular trial really is because the pragmatism score is not a binary characteristic; certain aspects of a trial can be more pragmatic than others. The pragmatism of a trial can be affected by modifications to the protocol or logistics during the trial. Additionally 36% of 89 pragmatic trials discovered by Koppenaal and co. were placebo-controlled or conducted prior to licensing and most were single-center. This means that they are not very close to usual practice and are only pragmatic in the event that their sponsors are supportive of the absence of blinding in these trials.

Furthermore, a common feature of pragmatic trials is that the researchers try to make their results more meaningful by analysing subgroups of the trial. However, this often leads to unbalanced comparisons and lower statistical power, increasing the risk of either not detecting or incorrectly detecting differences in the primary outcome. In the instance of the pragmatic trials included in this meta-analysis, this was a serious issue since the secondary outcomes were not adjusted to account for differences in the baseline covariates.

Additionally the pragmatic trials may present challenges in the gathering and interpretation of safety data. It is because adverse events are usually self-reported, and therefore are prone to errors, delays or coding errors. It is therefore crucial to enhance the quality of outcomes for these trials, and ideally by using national registries rather than relying on participants to report adverse events on the trial's database.

Results

Although the definition of pragmatism doesn't require that clinical trials be 100% pragmatic, there are benefits to including pragmatic components in trials. These include:

By including routine patients, the trial results are more easily translated into clinical practice. However, pragmatic trials may also have disadvantages. The right amount of heterogeneity, for example could allow a study to expand its findings to different patients or settings. However, the wrong type can reduce the assay sensitivity, and therefore lessen the power of a trial to detect small treatment effects.

A number of studies have attempted to categorize pragmatic trials, with various definitions and scoring systems. Schwartz and Lellouch1 developed a framework to differentiate between explanation studies that support a physiological hypothesis or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (hop over to here) clinical hypothesis, and pragmatic studies that inform the choice for appropriate therapies in the real-world clinical practice. The framework was comprised of nine domains, each scoring on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating more explanatory and 5 indicating more pragmatic. The domains were recruitment, setting, intervention delivery, flexible adherence, follow-up and primary analysis.

The original PRECIS tool3 had similar domains and 프라그마틱 순위 scales from 1 to 5. Koppenaal et. al10 devised an adaptation of this assessment, called the Pragmascope which was more user-friendly to use for systematic reviews. They found that pragmatic reviews scored higher on average in all domains, but scored lower in the primary analysis domain.

This distinction in the main analysis domain could be explained by the fact that the majority of pragmatic trials process their data in the intention to treat method, whereas some explanatory trials do not. The overall score for pragmatic systematic reviews was lower when the areas of organization, flexible delivery, and follow-up were merged.

It is important to understand that the term "pragmatic trial" does not necessarily mean a low-quality trial, and in fact there is an increasing number of clinical trials (as defined by MEDLINE search, but it is neither specific or sensitive) that employ the term 'pragmatic' in their abstracts or titles. The use of these terms in titles and abstracts could suggest a greater awareness of the importance of pragmatism but it isn't clear if this is evident in the content of the articles.

Conclusions

As appreciation for the value of evidence from the real world becomes more commonplace, pragmatic trials have gained traction in research. They are randomized studies that compare real-world treatment options with new treatments that are being developed. They are conducted with populations of patients closer to those treated in regular care. This approach can overcome the limitations of observational research, like the biases associated with the use of volunteers and the lack of coding variations in national registries.

Pragmatic trials have other advantages, including the ability to leverage existing data sources, and a greater probability of detecting meaningful differences than traditional trials. However, pragmatic tests may still have limitations which undermine their validity and generalizability. For example the rates of participation in some trials may be lower than expected due to the healthy-volunteer effect as well as incentives to pay or compete for participants from other research studies (e.g. industry trials). The need to recruit individuals quickly restricts the sample size and the impact of many pragmatic trials. Some pragmatic trials also lack controls to ensure that observed variations aren't due to biases in the trial.

The authors of the Pragmatic Free Trial Meta identified RCTs that were published between 2022 and 2022 that self-described as pragmatism. The PRECIS-2 tool was employed to assess the degree of pragmatism. It covers domains such as eligibility criteria, recruitment flexibility, adherence to intervention, and follow-up. They discovered 14 trials scored highly pragmatic or pragmatic (i.e. scoring 5 or more) in at least one of these domains.

Trials with high pragmatism scores are likely to have broader criteria for eligibility than traditional RCTs. They also have populations from many different hospitals. The authors argue that these characteristics could make pragmatic trials more meaningful and applicable to everyday clinical practice, however they don't necessarily mean that a pragmatic trial is completely free of bias. In addition, the pragmatism that is present in the trial is not a predetermined characteristic; a pragmatic trial that doesn't have all the characteristics of a explanatory trial can produce valid and useful results.